MovieChat Forums > 12 Angry Men (1957) Discussion > The defendant should've claimed self def...

The defendant should've claimed self defence, even if he really didn't kill his father.

posted 2 years ago by MikeHunt12345 (933)
4 replies | jump to latest

He was acquitted, but considering the evidence, his chances of being acquitted when claiming he didn't kill his father were extremely low.

He would've had a much better chance if he claimed self defence. The father was known to be physically abusive. If he said he was defending himself, everyone would've believed him, and he would've had a much better chance of being acquitted.

He still may have been convicted. The jury may have decided that although it was self defence, killing him was excessive. However, if he was convicted, it would've been manslaughter, which would've only resulted in a relatively short prison sentence.

[–] Ant1238 (916) 2 years ago

That movie would have sucked.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

No one said he was physically abused. Juror #8 said that. He said, without knowing a thing about the defendant, that kids like him come from backgrounds where their fathers rough them up.

This amount of confusion regarding the movie is why I absolutely HATE this film. Every piece of evidence, argument and conjecture was singlehandedly invented by Juror #8, but the movie convinced audiences that the case was being argued logically. It wasn't.

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) a year ago

All that's needed for acquittal is reasonable doubt. All that's needed for reasonable doubt is conjecture.

[–] WandererFromYs (2326) 2 months ago

If you are innocent you have to go with the truth, it's much easier to poke holes in the story if you are making it up. If he actually killed him and claimed self defense, he maybe get away with changing a few details, but if his story is true and he wasn't even there, he would get torn to shreds trying to make up the details, and his lack of credibility could lead to getting convicted for a murder he didn't commit.